On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 13:11 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>
> +static inline u32
> +rdev_get_radio_mask(struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev,
> + struct net_device *dev)
> +{
> + struct wiphy *wiphy = &rdev->wiphy;
> + u32 ret;
> +
> + if (!rdev->ops->get_radio_mask)
> + return 0;
> +
> + trace_rdev_get_radio_mask(wiphy, dev);
> + ret = rdev->ops->get_radio_mask(wiphy, dev);
> + trace_rdev_return_int(wiphy, ret);
I'd tend to prefer tracing even if it's not implemented, so we see
what's going on? Though personally I guess in this case I don't even
care much since mac80211 will unconditionally implement it ...
> @@ -2366,14 +2374,19 @@ int cfg80211_iter_combinations(struct wiphy *wiphy,
> void *data),
> void *data)
> {
> + const struct wiphy_radio *radio = NULL;
> + const struct ieee80211_iface_combination *c, *cs;
> const struct ieee80211_regdomain *regdom;
> enum nl80211_dfs_regions region = 0;
> - int i, j, iftype;
> + int i, j, n, iftype;
> int num_interfaces = 0;
> u32 used_iftypes = 0;
> u32 beacon_int_gcd;
> bool beacon_int_different;
>
> + if (params->radio_idx >= 0)
> + radio = &wiphy->radio[params->radio_idx];
Maybe we should have a sanity bounds check?
Or even really just __counted_by() annotations in struct wiphy_radio, so
we can run with UBSAN in testing (which would be a comment for patch 2,
but I'm not going to send it there again ;-) ).
johannes
